The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as G7. Sam Walton (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Ozovek[edit]

Jonathan Ozovek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD, rationale was: "No notability asserted in the article; the sources provided are unreliable. There's not a single Google News result.". Note to article's creator: I can help you get used to Wikipedia if you want me to. J947 23:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Flap Jack (musician)#Discography. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flap Jack discography[edit]

Flap Jack discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Kevin12xd 23:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect : Fails. Delete it or redirect to article Flap Jack (musician)--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The content in this article is already present in the parent article and therefore doesn't need to be duplicated in a separate article. Peacock (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Armstrong[edit]

Carol Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROF. Kevin12xd 23:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, part of Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Art+Feminism@SFAI 2017 and still a work-in-progress StrayBolt (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• She meets Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria Criterion 5 by being the Doris Stevens Professor of Women’s Studies at Princeton. StrayBolt (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She was the holder of a named professorship which meets academic criteria #5. She may also meet others, but meeting any one is enough to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per StrayBolt . The named chair is just the clearest of several vectors to notability. --Theredproject (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per StrayBolt. She likely also qualifies under academic criteria #1 for significant impact in her scholarly discipline. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I hadn't added the "chair" info when Kevin12 raised the issue. Any suggestions as to how much more I should add to the article to reach critical mass? What is the next step? StrayBolt (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you need not worry as votes are all for keep so far. She is clearly notable198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Contrary to the nomination statement, clearly passes WP:PROF on several criteria (named professorship at Princeton, library holdings, a Guggenheim Fellowship, etc.) as well as being the subject of a reasonable amount of coverage in independent sources. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A named professorship at Princeton, Guggenheim Fellow, a CAA book award; clearly passes WP:PROF on several counts. Nsk92 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep per WP:PROF#C5 —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bad nomination. In addition to the above, she is a Guggenheim fellow.198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject is obviously notable, has published widely, is a tenured full professor at Yale University, and prior to that at Princeton and Berkeley. She is a Guggenheim fellow. I think the nomination for deletion was not well considered. Netherzone (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. CSD G3 Deleted. (non-admin closure) TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PoPo Patrol[edit]

PoPo Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hip-hop group. reddogsix (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Kevin12xd 23:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any sources for this group to show that it meets WP:NMUSIC or GNG. The only source currently in the article is the group's facebook page. Originally there were two more refs, but neither of them actually mentioned the group. One was to OPRAH.COM, to support the more than a bit dubious claim that "The band was the reason behind Oprah's Book Club" and the second was to http://www.fueledbyramen.com/ in support of a claim that the band was signed to Fueled by Ramen. Neither of these claims was supported by the cited sources. I'm also rather dubious of the claim that the band is currently touring with Blink-182, Sum 41, Twenty One Pilots and other bands. Note that the band's Soundcloud account has all of three followers, two of whom are the band members. Meters (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Cammarano[edit]

Michael J. Cammarano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for politicians. Candidate for county-level seat, not yet elected; the only coverage I'm finding is the area paper, one article in the usual meet-the-candidate style and a few passing mentions (including an article on his son, in which the father is repeatedly referred to.) Nat Gertler (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've already speedied this once. Since he does not meet any of the notability criteria, the only reason for the creation of this article must be political canvassing. Deb (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete concur with nom. Local politician, fails WP:NPOL, WP:N.
• Delete an unelected judicial candidate. I am not sure even if elected he would be notable, but clearly as unelected he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable politicians.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Czarnik[edit]

Robert Czarnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article falls well below WP:NHOCKEY standards. Bill McKenna (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hays Travel[edit]

Hays Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A promotionally-toned page on an unremarkable private travel company, going about its business. Sources I see are PR-driven and do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The page created by Special:Contributions/Johncavehays with no other contributions outside of this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Only references out there come from the company's website or typical business directories, social media pages, and other sorts of travel-related promotional sites. Nothing that would meet notability requirements.Glendoremus (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article may have issues but I don't think WP:CORPDEPTH is one of them e.g. here. I think it may be "unremarkable" but it is notable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Concur with nom, fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient in-depth independent coverage in RS. Chroniclelive mention above is probably a republished press-release by the company. MB 04:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article which still retains much of its original text by the WP:SPA account User:Johncavehays. My searches are finding nothing beyond routine announcements (including the above-linked Chronicle item on an acquisition). It is a relatively-large firm in its business sector, but I see nothing to indicate encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough in-depth to demonstrate notability. Do not believe the source from a local newspaper is anything other than "trivial or incidental coverage" per WP:CORPDEPTH. AusLondonder (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeta Kandola[edit]

Sangeeta Kandola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG, also is a biographical article with no sources. Rayman60 (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST for lack of reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t - c} 22:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concur with nom. Searching does not find sufficient independent coverage (hardly anything). MB 04:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources indicate she is more than a run of the mill journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Author says "I have worked on this text but I can see that you do not like it.". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNSS FATIMA[edit]

GNSS FATIMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A proposed mars navigation system sourced entirely from obscure primary papers. No independent sources. Written by a WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:G7 as the article has been blanked by its creator. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Undeleted due to challnge by User:JFG who stated at WP:REFUND " I remember reading it as informative. There are also several internal links pointing to it. The article possibly warrants expansion to discuss the general concept of a Martian satellite navigation system, including other sources and other concepts". This is not a vote for me either way, but please consider JFG's point of view. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment being written by a SPA is not a reason to delete. They may have a COI. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reasons for delete are that it lacks credible independent sources to substantiate notability and is written entirely from primary sources, plus the fact that it appears to be promotional, which is unsurprising given that it was written by a SPA who is very likely to be one of the cited authors. It's a relevant fact. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article's creator blanked the page again so the page should be speedy deleted per WP:G7 -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikodemus Holler[edit]

Nikodemus Holler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one database source provided. No substantive sources provided. Fails WP:NCYCLING so we don't presume such sources do exist. RonSigPi (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't pass General Notability Guidelines BlueSalix (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and BIO after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Calloway[edit]

Jordan Calloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not establish notability and the only source is twitter, which isn't very notable JDDJS (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, he's an actor in a handful of popular TV shows and the article links to his IMDb profile, which lists several notable TV shows, per WP:ENT — OwenBlacker (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete has had various minor parts, and most notably was the Nickelodeon show when he was around 10-14 years old. Almost no coverage found of his career. Not sufficient. MB 05:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough of his roles have been substantial.Also, IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks sufficient coverage from reliable sources to establish notability.Cllgbksr (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ImpediMed[edit]

ImpediMed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing enough independent sources to support notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have looked at all of the eight cited references. Six of them are not independent sources (five sources on Impedimed's own web site and a press release). Another one is a "Media release" from the Australian stock exchange announcing a commercial deal, and the other is on a pay for view site and I haven't seen it, but judging from its title ( "ImpediMed unveils its game changer: Sozo") it is just an announcement of a product launch. The earliest pages of hits on a Google search for Impedimed are full of things such as Impedimed's own web site, the Wikipedia article, Twitter, LinkedIn, a report of a financial deal, Facebook, PR Newswire, pages of statistics about ImpediMed's financial performance, and so on. Nothing that begins to indicate notability in Wikipedia's terms. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per analysis by User:JamesBWatson. I had a look at the source in The Australian mentioned as inaccessible above, and it primarily revolved around a product called "Sozo" and only mentioned the company briefly. Sozo may be notable, but I don't think that ImpediMed is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The only reason given for keeping is that an editor thinks it "seems notable enough" without any indication why: see WP:ITSNOTABLE. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medibio[edit]

Medibio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing sufficient independent sources to support notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems notable enough to me, just needs some improvements. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the references are either from Medibio itself (and therefore not independent), or routine business news stuff that may or may not just be reheated press releases. The only one I'd consider to be from a decent source is the Hans Stampfer article, which does appear to be a high quality peer reviewed article, but it has the tiny drawback of not mentioning the company. I do not see how Medibio meets WP:CORP or WP:N at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zehri[edit]

Zehri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability or that this tribe really exists. Unsourced. JMHamo (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence (or even claim) of notability. I can't even find any information from a google search. bojo | talk 22:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Cannot find any source which even mentions the existence of this tribe. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although not a RS, Sanaullah Zehri does talk about this family/tribe. I really don't doubt that it exists, however still nothing to establish notability. MB 05:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per source searches, it existed in the 1950s, but unsure if it still exists. Below are some sources. Not finding significant coverage to meet WP:N, though. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.D. (Shelters to Deltas)[edit]

S.T.D. (Shelters to Deltas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mixtape with no sources or media articles other than music services links; from internet personality Cupcakke. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-noteable mixtape from slightly notable musician. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Rolling Stone and Pitchfork articles assert a minor argument for notability, but I could not find that much information/reliable, third-party coverage outside of these two sources. Any notable information from these two sources can be incorporated into the main album about the artist. Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. The musician herself is of dubious notability in the first place. TheKaphox T 23:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Mahadik[edit]

Santosh Mahadik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG, being a case of WP:BLP1E. And nothing in the article indicates he passes WP:SOLDIER, even though it was deprodded with that rationale. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER as he was not of sufficient rank, and his military awards are not the highest tier. I also agree that the GNG isn't met as the coverage all relates to a single event. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:BIO and, as mentioned above, WP:SOLDIER. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER and no other life event contribute.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No evidence that he passes WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement of content here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radial balance[edit]

Radial balance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Uncited article which is simply a definition. Delete as per WP:NOTDIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely falls under WP:NOTDIC. A google search indicates that the word is being used out there in the design world, and there are blogs and Prezis discussing it. However, per WP:NEO, there are no actual sources that I can find beyond the blogs. Since there's not much there and no sources, best to delete and someone can create this in a few years if it begins to appear in reliable sources. freshacconci (✉) 20:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleteas WP:G12 Copyvio from. http://www.digitalphotographytipsonline.com/balance-in-photography.html Mduvekot (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete . Materialscientist (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chibueze Stanley[edit]

Chibueze Stanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No participation in a fully pro league. At the very least this needs to be rewritten. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete has not played in a fully pro league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Speedy delete by Bbb23: A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick n shine[edit]

Quick n shine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted as it is not notable. Its only source in the article is the official website and a WP:BEFORE search showed no sources to meet the WP:GNG -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boys Generally Asian[edit]

Boys Generally Asian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable parody group. Fails WP:BAND. Sro23 (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• But this page should not be deleted. Boys generally Asian's single "Who's It Gonna Be" is currently (March 26, 2017) No. 1 on iTunes U.S K-Pop song chart. This is in line with with WP:BAND criteria item 2: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."DerekJiang (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.103.220.94 (talk)
• Keep Above comment confirmed DisappointMyParents(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As mentioned by the above two comments, the group's single "Who's It Gonna Be" is indeed No. 1 on the iTunes chart. [1] Contradicts Sro23's statement. Omkar1234talk 15:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Parody group. Also iTunes is not a reliable chart per WP:BADCHARTS. Rockysmile11^(talk) 21:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are an impressive 10 citations for this article. Ethnic bands should not be downplayed as they may be important to their own community. --Oskinet (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many music groups exist solely for parody but still contribute significantly to the music culture. See "Weird Al Yankovic." BgA is stirring up quite a conversation not only within YouTube but also in the actual Korean Kpop community - see sources. --Aredotwice (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Ryan Higa. Blackguard 07:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment iTunes is NOT a national music chart and cannot be used to meet WP:BAND, and as Rockysmile11 correctly points out, it is a deprecated chart. As for Oskinet's comment about the 10 citations, please note that five of those are not reliable secondary sources (two of those are instagram posts and three are youtube links to the band's own channel). Bennv3771 (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Independent news sources around the world have acknowledged this group, per WP:BAND criteria item 1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.112.95 (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)‎[reply]

• Where do you see that? So far the article contains maybe one or two good independent secondary sources. Soompi, koreaboo, instagram, youtube, etc. are not reliable third-party sources. Sro23 (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I added more sources. Some are foreign, but they seem independent and credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.112.95 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It should be acknowledged that iTunes indeed isn't a national chart required by WP:BAND item 2. However it should be noted that while some may argue sources mentioned by some above are not "notable" sources, many are indeed somewhat major publications, such as the Daily Dot. The only conclusion I can draw for item 1 is that it is vague and can be argued both ways. Also, there are two notable musicians on BGA: David Choi and Jun Sung Ahn. You can find more about them on their respective Wikipedia pages. This fits item 6 of WP:BAND, thus making BGA a legitimate parody band. DerekJiang (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Ellahi[edit]

Hossein Ellahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY. As a player who hasn't played yet the best that can be said is WP:TOOSOON. Cabayi (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the notability criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and NFOOTY Spiderone 13:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable football player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Dolls[edit]

Maybe Dolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Aside from one album and a few songs that made the "top 30" there isn't much notability here. No awards, no top 10 singles, only one album in a 3 year stretch before calling it quits. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - From the notability guildeline:

"may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."

Clearly the article meets that criterion. They also meet:

Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

ARIA Music Awards of 1992 lists that they were nominated for the category 'Breakthrough artist: single'.

This criterion is also met, as 'Nervous Kid' was featured in the Australian soap opera E Street and appeared on the soundtrack album for the show:

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

This criterion is also met:

Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

Both 'Nervous Kid' and 'Cool Jesus' received national airplay in Australia on both the radio and TV.

Nqr9 (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly satisfies requirements of WP:NBAND. Dan arndt (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I hadn't heard of this band before as I don't think they had any hits in the UK, but as someone who is also interested in music, chart positions etc. from other countries - popular and not-quite-so-popular - I find pages like this new one of interest and I'm happy to have learned about a band I wouldn't otherwise have known of. After all, that's the whole point of Wikipedia - to learn about things, to educate, on even those perhaps lesser-known subjects. Not everyone wants or even NEEDS to read about the Beatles, the Rolling Stones or Michael Jackson! --Geach (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator starts with "Aside from one album and a few songs that made the "top 30" there isn't much notability here." Clearly this nomination is running on different criteria than those at WP:NBAND. I dispute this dismissal of their national charting album and singles (even one is sufficient) in establishing their notability. I have added more content including supporting the claim of an ARIA award nomination and an album review. Nqr9 is right: the subject is clearly notable on multiple fronts according to the actual criteria. Nomination for AfD should be withdrawn.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And bring on the snow. Clearly notable based on passing multiple criteria of WP:MUSIC. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. SaintAviator lets talk 23:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Biogenic substance. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abiogenic[edit]

Abiogenic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contains neither references nor categories. It appears to be more of a definition than a true Wikipedia article. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:WINAD Sheepythemouse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been pointed out that I erred in my redirect to Abiogenesis. If that's so, this Afd should certainly run its course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is no more (nor less!) than a dictionary definition of an adjective. It doubtless belongs in Wiktionary. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Biogenic substance. Abiogenic/biogenic are two aspects of the same concept and discussing them together in one article is perfectly reasonable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Edgar. Having separate articles on these two concepts is like having separate articles for nonflammable and flammability, while deleting this one is like deleting the nonflammable redirect. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Tyleman[edit]

Cedric Tyleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated (again) under alternate spelling after being deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedric Tylleman — TAnthony^Talk 16:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete still a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antigone Sharris[edit]

Antigone Sharris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on a bureaucrat at a community college. My prod was removed. Just because someone's project gets a write-up in a newspaper does not make them notable. Speciate (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am afraid there is no possibility of passing WP:Prof, and nothing else seems applicable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete not even remotely close to meeting notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No publications, no notability outside of the local area. There is also a COI issue with this article. Rogermx (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The NYT article gives some notability to the gadget camp, but doesn't have enough about Sharris separately from her work with the camp to pass WP:BIO1E, and there doesn't seem to be anything else of significance here. Even the NYT article would not be enough by itself to support an article on the camp (although it would go a long way towards notability for it); it's definitely not enough by itself for Sharris. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete. Agricola44 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Labrović[edit]

Mirko Labrović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. He has only played/coached in Druga HNL and Treća HNL, neither of which are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played or managed a club in a fully pro league, nor received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable football player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mylakkattu Family[edit]

Mylakkattu Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable family. Fails WP:GNG. Written in a highly promotional tone. References are provided for the history of St. Thomas Christians in India, but does not mention why the particular family is notable. Probably created as part of the one-upmanship among Malayalee families in getting their family articles published in Wikipedia to create a fake sense of notability, which is also the reason for a plethora of other similar Malayalee family articles on Wikipedia, all of which quote the same book references. Jupitus Smart 14:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that "Mylakkattu family" is a non notable family has no merits.Whoever made the comment has no knowledge of the state of kerala,it is only because he or she neither know anything about kerala nor live in state of kerala (India).No specific information is given on promotional tone complaint hence the argument is complete non sense, Particular family is notable as they are first to involve in gnome mapping.Also the first kerala family to have a family application,if you know any family in kerala to have it for any family,I will nominate it for deleting the page.Seems like "one-upmanshipp" argument is totally defamatory to family and if you are from kerala I will make "family deflamation suit" to procecute you as per the full extend of law in the state of kerala.Reveal your name and address if you still have the same opinion and based in kerala,I will contest it in the court legally and you have the chance to contest it. Josh4u Smart 22:00, 25 March 2017 (PST) — Josh4u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The legal threat above needs to be retracted. See this. (User also warned on their talk page). --bonadea contributions talk 07:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mylakkattu family is a notable family.Pass WP:GNG. Those who nominated the page for deletion has no clue about this "notable" family.It may be due to lack of knowlege about kerala.Checked the facebook page of this family only to find out that this family has more followers than any other "family facebook pages" in kerala and even the travancore royal family which once ruled kerala has less followers in facebook compared to this family.Also verified their claim of family application and found it for free download in their website noted in wiki.I searched but couldn't find it for any other family in kerala based on google searches. Elsavarghese 13:01, 26 March 2017 (IST) — Elsavarghese (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Elsavarghese, I can only presume you have not actually read WP:GNG. If you had, you would surely have seen the part that speaks of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis and links in original). If you wish to claim WP:GNG, you will need to show us those sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no actual claim to notability. Most of the article is devoted to a description of Thomas the Apostle and the Saint Thomas Christians without any hint as to how this is related to the family. (I'm guessing that the Mylakkattu family belongs to the St Thomas Christians, but belonging to a notable group doesn't make them notable). Other things that do not make a family notable is initiating a genome mapping project, creating an app and a digital calendar for the family, having a lot of Facebook followers, or having descendants living abroad. If there had been in-depth coverage of the family's history or activities in multiple independent sources it might have been different, but there are no sources at all about the family except for the family's own website and Facebook page. --bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No independent sources, no indication of notability, and the bulk of the article isn't even about the family. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG ThatGirlTayler (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Had a quick search and found sod all of note.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Bhojak[edit]

Sandeep Bhojak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR: No significant coverage in independent reliable sources and I don't see if the subject has played a major role in any of the film listed in the article. It was created by a single-purpose account and deproded by a possible sock. The article should be deleted per What Wikipedia is not and WP:N. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:ENT. No significant coverage or major roles. SL93 (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this actor has played role in the three movies and the proper link is given in the table and also u can check in imdb for the given name and table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:102:fd25:aed5:1dd6:c59a:ddce (talk)

• Delete. The only WP:RS citation is the one in Times of India, and that only gives him a passing mention. The three Hindi citations are not specifically about him. IMDb is not WP:RS. A search turned up nothing better. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Narky Blert (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Eyster[edit]

Trevor Eyster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an actor, referenced entirely to primary sources and WP:BLOGS with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. He's had one role that seems "major" enough that he would probably qualify for an article if it were sourced properly, but no criterion in NACTOR grants an actor an exemption from having to be properly sourced just because passage of that criterion has been claimed -- an actor gets an article only when passage of an NACTOR criterion can be referenced to reliable sourcing which satisfies WP:GNG. But there's exactly zero acceptable sourcing shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Seems to have been a big deal as a child actor (as "Tim Eyster" and "Timothy Eyster"; he changed his name as an adult actor), and then had a 20-year break in his career. Now as an adult he is only doing short films or tiny roles. I'm seeing him in a lot of Salute Your Shorts reunion or "where are they now" articles [2], and in a Nickelodeon interview book [3]. I haven't searched under "Tim Eyster" or "Timothy Eyster", but that's where his notability currently lies -- in his childhood acting. (PS: That infobox needs a major gutting.) Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Passes GNG, notable for his work with Sponge Bob, has plenty of articles in Gnews re: him. L3X1 (distant write) 16:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1, what "work with Sponge Bob" are you referring to? And what "plenty of articles in Gnews re: him"? Softlavender (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

post mentioning him mentions him and what he did he is part of the cast L3X1 (distant write) 17:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not significant coverage; for all but one it's not even passing mention -- just his name and that's it. Plus only one of those is even a reliable source, and it only mentions his name and nothing else. Plus you still haven't explained "work with Sponge Bob". Softlavender (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sponge Bob is a mistake resulting from the time I read those articles and the time I !voted. L3X1 (distant write) 18:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, none of thise links particularly helps. A source has to do more than just mention his name before it counts toward getting him over WP:GNG — he has to be the source's subject, not just a name that gets namechecked in it. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.socialitelife.com/photos/90s-heartthrobs-part-5/tim-eyster-then is a short piece about him. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  

A blurb (failing WP:SIGCOV) on a blog (failing WP:RS) isn't contributing anything compelling. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article needs help, but I'm going to !vote keep because as a child actor he was certainly notable enough (and he still is sought-after because of that), and notability is not temporary. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE ASAP. This person has been in nothing but short films ^[1] like 8 minutes long not worth keep a page dedicated to him. This is blatantly clear abuse of the Wikipedia system. I recommend that this article to be deleted immediately.

50.73.249.121 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Anonymous — 50.73.249.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Good grief, that is completely untrue, as evidenced by the link you presented. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: ^^ Forgive that I'm somewhat of a Wiki Newbie and may not know how to appropriately go about flagging or saying this, but - upon a little digging, the above user appears to have multiple accounts (Conqueryourpc, LeakySponge, Hwlaster, 2602:306:CC4C:910:E868:6D6E:68DC:DFAA, 50.73.249.121, keeps adding himself to the Salute Your Shorts cast when he was just an extra, added his own award nomination for that role (uncited, deleted multiple times) and then flagged THIS page for deletion, when his own page was speedily deleted, in what appears to be some form of very spirited ... bad faith against Eyster. He has apparently been blocked from editing other pages. --90sNickfan (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Non-administrator comment)@90sNickfan: While I believe you meant well by posting the above, this is not really the proper venue for such a discussion. The discussion here is about whether this article should be deleted, and the fact that IP 50.73.249.121 is participating by !voting is not disruptive in and of itself because all editors are welcomed to participate in good faith. For reference, an AfD discussion is not a "vote" per se, i.e., the side with more votes does not always "win". The closing administrator will review all of the comments and determine if a consensus has been established based upon which side best presents their position in terms of relevant policies and guidelines. The best way for you to contribute to discussion is to comment on why you feel the article does/does not comply with relevant policies and guidelines. You should avoid commenting on other editors who are participating in the discussion or making claims against those who aren't. I suggest that you take a look at WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions to better familiarize yourself with what goes on in an AfD. There are proper venues for discussing editor behavior and these can be found listed in WP:PNBD. Just pick the relevant noticeboard, and start your discussion there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree wholeheartedly with the notion of notability not being temporary. Proper sources can, and most certainly should, be found and will add considerably to the necessity of this page. Salute Your Shorts is Eyster's major contribution to show business and claim to notability, but there are other projects he has participated in already, too, that add further credence to keeping this page, working on it, and adding to it for further improvement. --Ericdn (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'm jumping on the "notability is not temporary" bandwagon, but also wish to add that numerous edits have been made since the AfD flag went up to make the article more solid. He does have recent work, which takes him out of the category of being "just a child star." He is active in public appearances, has had recent work on some big-name shows, founded and is active in a non-profit, and is producing and releasing his own documentary project - all of which supplement the notability that he already had. I do wish to see the article more complete and solidified, but I strongly believe it meets WP:GNG. — Erinhayden (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vallikappen[edit]

Vallikappen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Un-Referenced and notable page. Talks about some family's history and is probably sourced from hearsay stories. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 14:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I see lots of people named Vallikappen but nothing that references the source or history of the name. Glendoremus (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A verified name, but not a notable one. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a rambling essay filled with original research and opinion that is so bad as to be impossible to re-write. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LiquidSky[edit]

LiquidSky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company/service launched this year, referenced entirely to the company website and its press releases/videos. Proposed deletion removed by creator without an explanation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Has received coverage in reliable sources such as PC Gamer and Engadget, among others. Some hits I could find appear to be press releases, but there does appear to be enough independent coverage to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I added two review references. One from online Time Magazine and the other from PCWorld. The way it's written about and the multitude of other 'not as prominent' sources leads me just on the side of notable
• Keep - Time magazine is a pretty high level source. I can't imagine the nominator would have made this nomination had they been aware of this sort of sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Very week keep. This feels like an article about an announcement of the service, in other words, WP:NEVENT and fails WP:LASTING. It's all rehashed PR blurbs and quotes, basically a whole lot of WP:PRIMARY. But the number of references from reputable sources, such as WP:VG/RS and broader, is numerous. It feels WP:TOOSOON, but I'm sure more sources actually dealing with the product itself will appear once it's released and reviewed. If it's a flop and no one ever comments on it again, I would revisit the AfD and argue for deletion due to failing WP:LASTING. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International cricket records[edit]

International cricket records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An arbitrary set of lists which selects records without any clear criteria and amalgamates the three types of cricket into one record set - which is rarely done within the sport, per WP:CRUFT. Lacks context to the individual records per WP:NOTSTATS and all records can be more reliably found in other places - CricInfo for example - so WP:NOTMIRROR applies. Only one source is offered so WP:ONESOURCE also kicks in and no actual evidence of notability is offered. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add, a very similar article was deleted last November - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World records in International cricket. This appears to be a partial recreation of that article, although not, as far as I can tell, by the same editor Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a valid argument. See WP:PERNOM Yashovardhan (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. The page you link to is an essay. There's no point repeating verbatim what BST (hey, that's tonight in the UK, chuckle!) has said, when he's summed up the issues with the article perfectly. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep WP:ONESOUCE is not a valid criteria for deletion. Also WP:NOTMIRROR is not valid here as the article is not a mirror and is fit for an encyclopedia. Please use WP:SNOWBALL and realize that this article is of use to many people. I agree that WP:NOTSTATS is applicable but please realize that it could set a dangerous precedence and result in deletion of various other articles as well. Rather than deletion, the article should be improved and more sources be added Yashovardhan (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete changing my own point, delete as per WP:NOSTATS. No point keeping a mirror article. Moreover, since the consensus is looking in the favour of delete and the author himself wants it deleted, it could be speedy deleted as well Yashovardhan (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Arbitrary selection of stats uplifted from espnCricinfo without any noticeable selection criteria, appears to be totally random and of low significance on a world cricketing level. Also a breach of WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also supporting the ideas of other wikipedians to delete this article.Abishe(talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics[edit]

Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal. Article dePRODded by article creator who notes on the talk page that the journal is included in Ulrichsweb (which strives for all inclusiveness) and that EBSCO has expressed interest (without any evidence for this and, in any case, EBSCO is not very selective either). It is also mentioned that a distinguished person has authored an article in this journal, which is equally irrelevant (WP:NOTINHERITED). There is an unsourced claim that the journal's topic is unique, but that is not a valid claim for notability either. PROD reason still stands: Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan to do any more work to combat Wikipedia vandalism. (Jimmaths (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• Weak keep -- I think the attitude being taken to peer-reviewed academic journals is too strong. This usual problem is finding any independent (3rd party) sources on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So what policy-based reason do you have for keeping this? No sources, nothing... --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No selective indexing whatsoever, no coverage in source, completely unnotable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the thing we look for in this case is sources that discuss a journal itself, in order to determine what is notable and what is not. Full completeness of all published journals is not and should not be a goal of this project. In this particular example, it's easy to find brief mentions of it, a handful of citations to it, and some credible scholars publishing in it, but nothing at all about it. Should be deleted but can easily be recreated if it does become more notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• delete fails WP:GNG. and no selective indexing. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhaker Upadhyay[edit]

Sudhaker Upadhyay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic, fails prof test, self-penned vanity page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. On what looks like a successful academic trajectory, but citation counts are too low (in a high-citation field) to demonstrate a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else looks like a cause for notability. WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Off to a good start but, as yet, WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete The subject has published several papers in high-impact high-energy physics journals such as Phys. Rev. D and Phys. Lett. B, but at the moment, there are few citations to these articles to pass WP:PROF#C1. The editorship of a non-notable journal such as the Journal of Experimental Physics (which to be honest, feels like a predatory journal to me), is also not good enough to pass WP:PROF#C8 — Stringy Acid (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:PROF. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted as G5 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mukti Subedi (actor)[edit]

Mukti Subedi (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. FITINDIA (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as no real coverage, or depth of coverage. I any case, it's a purely promotional piece. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly[edit]

The real name was Mukti Subedi.I have also has article on scholar.google.com. As Mukti Subedi wiki page had been created more than 5 time by anynomous person. So I can't able to make a new from that link. So I havee added actor after my name. So Please remove the discussion. I am not right candidate to place speedy deletion. Thank YouMukti Subedi(ARTIST) (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mortal Kombat II. And merge back an appropriately condensed version from the history.  Sandstein  16:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Home versions of Mortal Kombat II[edit]

Home versions of Mortal Kombat II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was split off from the former Mortal Kombat II article since it had its own section that was getting pretty large. However, I, and perhaps most other people, fail to see the significance of this topic. It mostly is minutia that falls under WP:GAMECRUFT, particularly Point #10. It has some citations, but the issue is not its sourcing, only its notability. No attempt is made to explain why the subject matters; any notable points can easily be included in the article for the original game. It's the only article of its kind that I can even find on Wikipedia, which I know can be the inverse of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This matters mostly only to people who care about this sort of thing, of whom I happen to be one (which is how I know). This material would be better suited to a fansite, like the Mortal Kombat Wikia. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to parent article. I agree with the nominators sentiments - it seems like it's become a magnet for trivia, and once you trim all that out, it can just be a subject in the main article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a logical extension of the Mortal Kombat II article. If we accept that it sometimes makes sense to split off a separate article for a game's characters, an aspect of the game's fictional world, then it follows that it sometimes makes sense to split off a separate article for a game's different versions, an aspect of the game itself. GAMECRUFT point 10 says "A list of every version/beta/patch is inappropriate. Consider a summary of development instead." So that point is clearly referring to pre-release updates, not separate releases, which is what this article covers. As for there being no other articles of its kind, check out Official versions of Doom. It makes sense for there to be only a small number of articles of this type; by my reasoning, we should only have them for games which have a large number of different versions which differ substantially from each other, and which have been significantly covered by sources on an individual basis. Mortal Kombat II and Doom both certainly meet those qualifications.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I take back what I said about this being an inverse application of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - this is more of a straight-up example than I thought. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also didn't say there were no other articles like it, I said I couldn't find any. I'm always careful to word it like that because I could just as easily be proven wrong. Nevertheless, the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point still stands. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mortal Kombat II. This information is important but it can be condensed and placed in the main article.The World Warrior (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Redirect back to Mortal Kombat II. To preface, this would be a valid WP:SPLIT from the main article due to size/length/editorial reasons, so it wouldn't fall under WP:N guideline (or WP:NOTINHERITED). I also would argue that since this is primarily about full releases, development history and notable differences, it's not purely WP:GAMECRUFT. The game has a veritable non-minor release history. However, the sourcing just isn't good enough. It's a whole lot of unsourced material, lots of primary sites and borderline WP:OR connections and notes (using "for example" is really bad for establishing facts or connections that aren't just WP:SYNTH). If there had been some sources that specifically talked about the different home versions as a whole, I could see this as separate content. But without some sources explicitly discussing the "topic", it feels like WP:TRIVIA due to being a collection of facts whose relation to each other isn't established in any sources. I'm not sure what content to merge here, since the aforementioned lack of sources tying it all together. I think the main article already mentions what it can without going into excessive detail. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled at your comments on the sourcing. Looking over the article, far from "a whole lot of unsourced material, lots of primary sites", the majority of the content is cited to articles from GamePro, Amiga Power, GameSpot, EGM, etc. - basically all the "usual suspects" of notable/reliable gaming sources. We usually consider having sourcing even a tenth as good as this to be sufficient grounds for "keep".--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for "a whole lot of unsourced material", I can confirm this much: Entire chunks, like the Game Boy section, the PlayStation section, most of the Sega Saturn section, and the entire Midway Arcade Treasures blurb are all unsourced. Otherwise, the Genesis, Game Gear/Master System, and MS-DOS sections have almost no sourcing. That's definitely what I would call "a whole lot". Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit out of context, and my main point is that no sources discuss the content as a single topic. Without a connection between all the versions by sources, we're just picking out individual details and comparisons and filling out the blanks (WP:SYNTH). At that point, this would be just a list, and I don't think it would pass WP:LISTN as having sources that discuss it as a group. The majority of sources here are not bad, just not for the whole topic. In fact, we could probably write content for certain versions of the game. We just don't seem to do that for video games. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know exactly what you're saying. Say somebody notable reviews the Game Boy version and we use it as a source for the content of that port of the game. It would be OR/SYNTH if, for example, the review says it has eight playable characters without saying it's missing any, but we write that it's only got eight playable characters and is missing several from the arcade version. We're not the ones allowed to make the comparison; at least one of the sources we gather must explicitly do so or else we can't draw attention to it here on Wikipedia.

With that, come to think of it, I certainly think the diversity of game ports way back in the day is an interesting and even notable topic. Ports these days are often identical to the originals they're based on, but it was a lot different a few decades ago and even as recently as the turn of the millenium. Each system was different, so the ports of a single game already couldn't be 100% identical, but there was still enough room to tinker with the overall presentation, which gave each port its own unique flavor in many ways. I certainly see the potential for this topic to be examined in and of itself in its own article, but what remains to be seen is discussion of this topic in and of itself in third-party sources, let alone in enough of them to build articles without merely or primarily using one source per article.

To conclude, even with all that I think the best solution for this article is to blow it up and start over. There needs to be so much more comparison not just to the arcade but between versions without focusing on minutia like shadow sprites in a particular version of a particular stage, but again we don't have the third-party leverage to do that yet. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow why you think list-type article must be limited to sources which discuss all the items on the list as a whole. I have yet to see a single list-type article which meets that qualification - which only makes sense, because the whole concept of a list-type article is to cover multiple subjects which are related but ultimately separate.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of WP:LISTN. If a source doesn't discuss something a group, what reason do we have to group it (OR/SYNTH)? Occasionally, it's an obvious defining characteristic, like a genre or something. But when it's not, there should be appropriate sourcing. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying each source we use has to include every item on the list is stretching it just a bit. We don't need every source discussing every single item on the list in comparison to each other. We just need a source to say, for example, that the Game Boy version is missing several characters - actually missing them - that were present in the arcade version. We need good, reliable sources that actually say on their own what we want to say about the subject on Wikipedia. It is not necessary that to be valid for use in this article a source has to document all the different versions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Another thing I think is worth pointing out is that every entry on this list is essentially trying to be the same game. Most of these ports play exactly as the arcade version does, regardless of any other differences, which often boil down to things like one stage lacking shadow sprites in one version of the game. We're basically describing the same game over and over. The differences between them are not significant enough to warrant a complete, thorough cataloguing by Wikipedia, let alone in an article devoted entirely to such things. Even if we had the abundance of sources necessary to reliably point these things out, I still say the article should get the ax. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) K.Bog 20:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Rule[edit]

Machine Rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant with AI takeover as well as a spate of other articles; no meaningful content. K.Bog 04:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - for some reason I forgot that deleting the page content and redirecting was an option, so I'll do that. K.Bog 20:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and redirect to AI takeover. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endoca[edit]

Endoca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable company. Most of the references do not even mention the company (they are about cannabis in general), and those that do name the company involve just passing mentions or are non-independent. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article must not be deleted on the basis of notable resources. The resources on dopemagazine must be a good resource for stay article live. 43.239.68.170 (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC) — 43.239.68.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also, a suspected IP sock of Wikibaji, article creator, who commented again below.[reply]

The Dope Magazine article barely even mentions Endoca. If that reference is the best guage of Endoca's notability, then Endoca is clearly not notable. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are few resources which seems trust-able Trustpilot, spandidos-publications, dr.dk, wholefoodsmagazine and supplementpolice Wikibaji 06:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaji (talk • contribs) :Some citations (dr.dk, supplementpolice) are useful on Endoca article, it must be live on Wikipedia 14.192.210.245 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any cited sources that help to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - The article looks somewhat promotional to me. I have no idea for the notability, but also have not heard of this company before. The cannabis industry is notable, with recent legal developments in the U.S. though. If we can find a reliable third-party source that itself is notable, which mentions how Endoca is a pioneer in the field, then perhaps the company merits an article. Its tone would still need to be adjusted to not read like an advertisement. PaleoNeonate (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In addition to the comments above, I can't find anything more than trivial mentions in a news search. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• comment One of the things I noticed is that most of the references are in Dutch. I am curious, does Wikipedia permit the use of references that talk about content in a language apart from English? I know there are several Wikipedia pages in multiple languages, but is it necessary that a page in English have references that are written only in English? And does the same analogy apply to pages in other languages too?FlyingBlueDream (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-English language sources are allowed in the English Wikipedia; see WP:NONENG. That said, if there are two sources of equal quality and relevance, and one is in English and the other not, the one in English should be cited in the English Wikipedia. I don't know what other language Wikipedias' policies are on the use of sources outside their languages; those policies may well vary from language to language. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Endoca ApS CVR-nr 32334865 CVRP-nr 1019145480 is a very small Danish company established i 2014 with 2-4 employees. The cited article from Danmarks Radio 25. FEB. 2014 [[4]] is very critical of the company and it seems everything in connection with the company is not in accordance with Danish law. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 20:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Dyveldi, Can you please explain what Danish law is broken by the company? Do you have any valid point that explain the company is not notable to stay on Wikipedia. Wikibaji (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delayed answer. Reason for deletion is that it is a very small non notable Danish business. Wikipedia is not a business catalogue.

-- The article referred to is from 2014 and the company seems to have broken marketing regulations and questions were asked by Danish health authorities. As described in the article they needed to adjust their marketing and in addition comply with health regulations in Denmark. At the time it was not reported to the police. I have not followed up what happened to the case, but based experience from Norwegian similar cases they probably adjusted their marketing in accordance with the law and answered the questions asked. Changed their homepage, became more careful. Possibly also filed the correct applications for licenses which at the time was missing. Whether they in the end were served a fine I have not tried to find out. If so it has not necessarily been public and may not have been written about in the newspapers. The company is so small that it is not notable and it was not worth the work to try to find out what happened after the 2014 article. Their little skirmish with the law is definitely not enough to make them notable. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 19:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no indication that this company meets WP:CORP. Peacock (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORP and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yes, there were a lot of SPA-!voters in this AFD, but even assuming all the SPA !voters are one person, their point is valid. Relying on the sources added by GSS-1987 and other sources which were asserted to exist through invocations of GNG, the delete !votes, all of which came before the article was improved are invalid. The claims of socking might be overblown: the sources assert that the subject singer is popular, and two of the IPs geolocate to different service providers.-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbagh singh[edit]

Dilbagh singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor English, creator NOTHERE, lack of citations, disputed Notability, lack of facts. Tried to fix article, but couldn't. L3X1 (distant write) 20:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NMUSICIAN Spiderone 09:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of passing WP:NBIO. Ajf773 (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have extended the article a little bit and included some sources but I'm unsure if it passes WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-the redited version looks good. The person is notable enough to keep the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.152.182 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC) — 106.215.152.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Quack quack. L3X1 (distant write) 21:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Passes WP:GNG and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinayaksingh101 (talk • contribs) — Vinayaksingh101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

More quackery. I will accuse you of being a sock, as voting in this AfD is the first thing you have ever done. Keep these lies up and I'll run and get SEMI. L3X1 (distant write) 23:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Mr./Miss L3X1, I'm not a sock, I gave my vote on the basis of the sources given in the article. I had an account previously on Wikipedia but forgot its password and since I didn't use my email id in the first place, I couldn't retrive the account. So, let's not go around accusing people for nothing. I would request you to go through the article once again and decide for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinayaksingh101 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is notable according to the links provided in the article and should be retained according to the Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The motionless freak (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks good to me based on the references and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.168.105 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm from Punjab and I'm aware of his work. Also, the article looks nicely linked for each claim. So, my vote goes for keep. Nandika Singh —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he is a very known personality in punjabi music industry and Bollywood and the links attached are testimonial of the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.91.213 (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Adheres to Wikipedia's notability policy. Instantly Maters 14:56, 1 April, 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Note that basically every keep !vote here is a SPA. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louey Kachinsky[edit]

Louey Kachinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not finding sufficient number of sources to establish WP:GNG –CaroleHenson (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and BIO after checking notability, and it appears to have local news coverage in a GNews search. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 01:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC, possibly even promotional. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson De Freitas[edit]

Nelson De Freitas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hasn't been updated in a few years with new information, page is a stub, new citations haven't been added in a few years. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero Gnews results for this voice actor. Zilch. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Univz[edit]

Univz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Fails the notability for music criteria. - TheMagnificentist 17:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see any reliable sources. Ping me if you find any good citations. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep

Here are reliable sources, her interview with We Rave You Magazine: http://weraveyou.com/2017/01/univz-stardust/ and DJ MAG Japan: https://djmag.jp/en/news/20170202180000 Her latest track was spotlighted as one of top 100 best Spinnin’ Records tracks in 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o2s5ZFnczg Her official video made top5 music videos of the week according to Free Press Houston: http://www.freepresshouston.com/top-5-music-videos-of-the-week-marshmello-univz-more/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100garrixer (talk • contribs) 02:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC) — 100garrixer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• None of these could be considered important, significant references for establishing notability. They are first party (interview) or promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my reply to the "keep" vote above. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sourced only to Spanish Wikipedia and IMDB. Bishonen | talk 11:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo H. Vila[edit]

Rodrigo H. Vila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP, written like a résumé, of a film director and producer who is "referenced" entirely to two invalid circular references to the Spanish Wikipedia and two of his films' IMDb pages. As always, a director does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because he exists — there are statements in here that would count as valid notability claims if they were properly referenced to reliable sources, which is why I can't just speedy this outright, but nothing in the article exempts him from having to be sourced significantly better than this. As well, the article was created by a user named "Cinema7films", which is the name of the subject's own production company — so there's a direct conflict of interest here too. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbound (album)[edit]

Heartbound (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not reviewed in reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUM. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Here's two reliable source reviews: Allmusic, Rock Sound. It's by a notable band, was nominated for an ARIA Award, and it charted, so it has some notability. --Michig (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Would have been redirect to band at worst. Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Pursuit of Greed[edit]

In Pursuit of Greed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find video game sources: "In Pursuit of Greed" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Not reviewed in reliable sources. Fails WP:NVG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep as it WAS reviewed in reliable sources (one print press review was already in the article, more exist but are hard to trakc down). "PC Gamer 1996-08 by T. Liam Mcdonald" ... also, this article is just in the creation phase, give it some more time. Shaddim (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth (reviews and otherwise) sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I see coverage in PC Gamer, PC Gamer DE, Computer Games Magazine, PC Games; also various publications like Level CZ, Score CZ and very likely others we haven't documented in our reference library or that are hard-to-search contemporary written publication. The sources in the article aren't great, but notability is not based on article quality. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 15:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not entirely sure why this was relisted; HK's check on sources is persuasive. Keep. --Izno (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 11:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Mendelson[edit]

Brandon Mendelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)